For the first time since I turned 18 I didnt vote. If the candidates cannot be bothered to canvas or, at least stick a flyer through my letter box, I consider none of them worth my vote. If a union called a strike on a majority of a 13% turnout being in favour the Tories would be arguing that it was undemocratic.If this vote was to find out who we want as our police commissioner, then logic would suggest the majority do not want one!

For the first time since I turned 18 I didnt vote. If the candidates cannot be bothered to canvas or, at least stick a flyer through my letter box, I consider none of them worth my vote. If a union called a strike on a majority of a 13% turnout being in favour the Tories would be arguing that it was undemocratic.If this vote was to find out who we want as our police commissioner, then logic would suggest the majority do not want one!mac

Please John Dwyer don't tell us you have a mandate to do as you please despite your experience. With a turnout of a little over 12%, and after a rerun of the votes to make sure who voted for whom, your tenure or office is based upon a very shaky foundation, notwithstanding the Con-Lib government's attempt to foist PCCs on the public.

Please John Dwyer don't tell us you have a mandate to do as you please despite your experience. With a turnout of a little over 12%, and after a rerun of the votes to make sure who voted for whom, your tenure or office is based upon a very shaky foundation, notwithstanding the Con-Lib government's attempt to foist PCCs on the public.Gorsedd

Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Same old nonsense comments! If you didnt want this guy, you should have got off your arses and voted against him. He got the most votes. He won. Thats democracy! Simple really!

Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Same old nonsense comments! If you didnt want this guy, you should have got off your arses and voted against him. He got the most votes. He won. Thats democracy! Simple really!Kingsmill

Kingsmill wrote:
Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Same old nonsense comments! If you didnt want this guy, you should have got off your arses and voted against him. He got the most votes. He won. Thats democracy! Simple really!

What a pathetic, but not unexpected response. Everyone else is to blame except those who introduced a system which the large proportion of the electorate did not want. The electorate made this plain by the poor turnout at these elections. It has been clear for some time that the public don't want political participation in policing - for fairly obvious reasons; take a look at most totalitarian regimes for starters. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion if John Dwyer got home by two votes with a total electorate turnout of 10 that is democracy - rubbish.

[quote][p][bold]Kingsmill[/bold] wrote:
Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Same old nonsense comments! If you didnt want this guy, you should have got off your arses and voted against him. He got the most votes. He won. Thats democracy! Simple really![/p][/quote]What a pathetic, but not unexpected response. Everyone else is to blame except those who introduced a system which the large proportion of the electorate did not want. The electorate made this plain by the poor turnout at these elections. It has been clear for some time that the public don't want political participation in policing - for fairly obvious reasons; take a look at most totalitarian regimes for starters. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion if John Dwyer got home by two votes with a total electorate turnout of 10 that is democracy - rubbish.Gorsedd

Kingsmill wrote:
Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Same old nonsense comments! If you didnt want this guy, you should have got off your arses and voted against him. He got the most votes. He won. Thats democracy! Simple really!

What a pathetic, but not unexpected response. Everyone else is to blame except those who introduced a system which the large proportion of the electorate did not want. The electorate made this plain by the poor turnout at these elections. It has been clear for some time that the public don't want political participation in policing - for fairly obvious reasons; take a look at most totalitarian regimes for starters. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion if John Dwyer got home by two votes with a total electorate turnout of 10 that is democracy - rubbish.

I dont remember there being any minimum number of votes required to make the vote valid; its simple - the most votes cast for one candidate wins. John Dwyer won. Accept it until you have the opportunity to change it. That's democracy. Thats how the system works. Of course some cant accept it when they dont get the result they want!

[quote][p][bold]Gorsedd[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Kingsmill[/bold] wrote:
Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Same old nonsense comments! If you didnt want this guy, you should have got off your arses and voted against him. He got the most votes. He won. Thats democracy! Simple really![/p][/quote]What a pathetic, but not unexpected response. Everyone else is to blame except those who introduced a system which the large proportion of the electorate did not want. The electorate made this plain by the poor turnout at these elections. It has been clear for some time that the public don't want political participation in policing - for fairly obvious reasons; take a look at most totalitarian regimes for starters. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion if John Dwyer got home by two votes with a total electorate turnout of 10 that is democracy - rubbish.[/p][/quote]I dont remember there being any minimum number of votes required to make the vote valid; its simple - the most votes cast for one candidate wins. John Dwyer won. Accept it until you have the opportunity to change it. That's democracy. Thats how the system works. Of course some cant accept it when they dont get the result they want!Kingsmill

All this bull about cuts for councils are neede stinks as a cover up for what this government really wants. A police state, everyone working for private company.

Funny that in leafy Cheshire they got 1% more than the slums of Wire!

Waste of time and money Kingsmill eh?
All this bull about cuts for councils are neede stinks as a cover up for what this government really wants. A police state, everyone working for private company.
Funny that in leafy Cheshire they got 1% more than the slums of Wire!Casual Postman of Orford

All this bull about cuts for councils are neede stinks as a cover up for what this government really wants. A police state, everyone working for private company.

Funny that in leafy Cheshire they got 1% more than the slums of Wire!

Oh my word - funny how a democratic election where everyone over the age of 18 has the right to vote, is seen as an indication of a "Police State". Like it or not, PCC's were passed by our democratically elected Parliament and we all had the opportunity to vote. And if you think Warrington is a slum (and I dont) then i suggest you live somewhere else!

[quote][p][bold]Casual Postman of Orford[/bold] wrote:
Waste of time and money Kingsmill eh?
All this bull about cuts for councils are neede stinks as a cover up for what this government really wants. A police state, everyone working for private company.
Funny that in leafy Cheshire they got 1% more than the slums of Wire![/p][/quote]Oh my word - funny how a democratic election where everyone over the age of 18 has the right to vote, is seen as an indication of a "Police State". Like it or not, PCC's were passed by our democratically elected Parliament and we all had the opportunity to vote. And if you think Warrington is a slum (and I dont) then i suggest you live somewhere else!Kingsmill

Kingsmill said "I dont remember there being any minimum number of votes required to make the vote valid; its simple - the most votes cast for one candidate wins. John Dwyer won. Accept it until you have the opportunity to change it. That's democracy. That’s how the system works. Of course some can’t accept it when they don’t get the result they want!" Meanwhile in the aftermath of the fiasco “the Electoral Commission today launched an inquiry into the organisation of the election, saying the poor turnout was a "concern for everyone who cares about democracy". You make a mockery of democracy at your peril Kingsmill. There is no question but that the newly elected PCCs will have no mandate and a very shaky grip on the actions they take in their new found highly paid posts. Even Stalin recognized that it was not voters who win elections, but those who counted the votes.

Kingsmill said "I dont remember there being any minimum number of votes required to make the vote valid; its simple - the most votes cast for one candidate wins. John Dwyer won. Accept it until you have the opportunity to change it. That's democracy. That’s how the system works. Of course some can’t accept it when they don’t get the result they want!" Meanwhile in the aftermath of the fiasco “the Electoral Commission today launched an inquiry into the organisation of the election, saying the poor turnout was a "concern for everyone who cares about democracy". You make a mockery of democracy at your peril Kingsmill. There is no question but that the newly elected PCCs will have no mandate and a very shaky grip on the actions they take in their new found highly paid posts. Even Stalin recognized that it was not voters who win elections, but those who counted the votes.Gorsedd

Gorsedd wrote:
Kingsmill said &quot;I dont remember there being any minimum number of votes required to make the vote valid; its simple - the most votes cast for one candidate wins. John Dwyer won. Accept it until you have the opportunity to change it. That's democracy. That’s how the system works. Of course some can’t accept it when they don’t get the result they want!" Meanwhile in the aftermath of the fiasco “the Electoral Commission today launched an inquiry into the organisation of the election, saying the poor turnout was a "concern for everyone who cares about democracy". You make a mockery of democracy at your peril Kingsmill. There is no question but that the newly elected PCCs will have no mandate and a very shaky grip on the actions they take in their new found highly paid posts. Even Stalin recognized that it was not voters who win elections, but those who counted the votes.

As I have pointed out in every post, democracy requires that people vote; if you dont vote then dont complain about the result! Not sure how that is mocking democracy, but hey - never let a good prejudice get in the way of the facts! So its very pleasing to see the Electoral Commissions comments; never the less, the PCC will still have more of a mandate than the unelected body they replace. I think its best that we leave Stalin where he lies as I see no relevance - unless you are inferring that a centre right coalition Government somehow has Stalinist intentions? Sincere apologies - no-one could be that ridiculous!

[quote][p][bold]Gorsedd[/bold] wrote:
Kingsmill said "I dont remember there being any minimum number of votes required to make the vote valid; its simple - the most votes cast for one candidate wins. John Dwyer won. Accept it until you have the opportunity to change it. That's democracy. That’s how the system works. Of course some can’t accept it when they don’t get the result they want!" Meanwhile in the aftermath of the fiasco “the Electoral Commission today launched an inquiry into the organisation of the election, saying the poor turnout was a "concern for everyone who cares about democracy". You make a mockery of democracy at your peril Kingsmill. There is no question but that the newly elected PCCs will have no mandate and a very shaky grip on the actions they take in their new found highly paid posts. Even Stalin recognized that it was not voters who win elections, but those who counted the votes.[/p][/quote]As I have pointed out in every post, democracy requires that people vote; if you dont vote then dont complain about the result! Not sure how that is mocking democracy, but hey - never let a good prejudice get in the way of the facts! So its very pleasing to see the Electoral Commissions comments; never the less, the PCC will still have more of a mandate than the unelected body they replace. I think its best that we leave Stalin where he lies as I see no relevance - unless you are inferring that a centre right coalition Government somehow has Stalinist intentions? Sincere apologies - no-one could be that ridiculous!Kingsmill

mac wrote:
For the first time since I turned 18 I didnt vote. If the candidates cannot be bothered to canvas or, at least stick a flyer through my letter box, I consider none of them worth my vote. If a union called a strike on a majority of a 13% turnout being in favour the Tories would be arguing that it was undemocratic.If this vote was to find out who we want as our police commissioner, then logic would suggest the majority do not want one!

Well said. If this waste of tax payers money was suppose to "improve" the Police service, there's a saying that comes to mind... you can polish a turd, but it will still look like a turd!

[quote][p][bold]mac[/bold] wrote:
For the first time since I turned 18 I didnt vote. If the candidates cannot be bothered to canvas or, at least stick a flyer through my letter box, I consider none of them worth my vote. If a union called a strike on a majority of a 13% turnout being in favour the Tories would be arguing that it was undemocratic.If this vote was to find out who we want as our police commissioner, then logic would suggest the majority do not want one![/p][/quote]Well said. If this waste of tax payers money was suppose to "improve" the Police service, there's a saying that comes to mind... you can polish a turd, but it will still look like a turd!Woolston_R_Us

Sharkey2908 wrote:
No one wanted this. Its more &quot;Jobs for the Boys". Interesting to note that candidates have to be an MP. What happened to the police being non-political?

Where did you get that from - very few candidates were MPs (or former MPs, they had to step down if they were serving when nominated)

There are plenty of reasons to criticise this farce based on reality without non-factual allegations.

Just over 5% of the electorate voted for the winning candidate as a first choice - not his fault but he does not have an electoral mandate.

The only way he can start to justify his position is by holding regular, local open meetings (properly advertised) where he, personally, is called to account.He also needs to set measurable targets , independently monitored, and if he does not reach those he needs to go.

[quote][p][bold]Sharkey2908[/bold] wrote:
No one wanted this. Its more "Jobs for the Boys". Interesting to note that candidates have to be an MP. What happened to the police being non-political?[/p][/quote]Where did you get that from - very few candidates were MPs (or former MPs, they had to step down if they were serving when nominated)
There are plenty of reasons to criticise this farce based on reality without non-factual allegations.
Just over 5% of the electorate voted for the winning candidate as a first choice - not his fault but he does not have an electoral mandate.
The only way he can start to justify his position is by holding regular, local open meetings (properly advertised) where he, personally, is called to account.He also needs to set measurable targets , independently monitored, and if he does not reach those he needs to go.Nick Tessla

Gorsedd wrote:
Kingsmill said &quot;I dont remember there being any minimum number of votes required to make the vote valid; its simple - the most votes cast for one candidate wins. John Dwyer won. Accept it until you have the opportunity to change it. That's democracy. That’s how the system works. Of course some can’t accept it when they don’t get the result they want!" Meanwhile in the aftermath of the fiasco “the Electoral Commission today launched an inquiry into the organisation of the election, saying the poor turnout was a "concern for everyone who cares about democracy". You make a mockery of democracy at your peril Kingsmill. There is no question but that the newly elected PCCs will have no mandate and a very shaky grip on the actions they take in their new found highly paid posts. Even Stalin recognized that it was not voters who win elections, but those who counted the votes.

As I have pointed out in every post, democracy requires that people vote; if you dont vote then dont complain about the result! Not sure how that is mocking democracy, but hey - never let a good prejudice get in the way of the facts! So its very pleasing to see the Electoral Commissions comments; never the less, the PCC will still have more of a mandate than the unelected body they replace. I think its best that we leave Stalin where he lies as I see no relevance - unless you are inferring that a centre right coalition Government somehow has Stalinist intentions? Sincere apologies - no-one could be that ridiculous!

Perhaps you should read up on the term "democratic process" and the real facts behind this farcical process before pontificating to all about your own version of 'the facts'.

[quote][p][bold]Kingsmill[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Gorsedd[/bold] wrote:
Kingsmill said "I dont remember there being any minimum number of votes required to make the vote valid; its simple - the most votes cast for one candidate wins. John Dwyer won. Accept it until you have the opportunity to change it. That's democracy. That’s how the system works. Of course some can’t accept it when they don’t get the result they want!" Meanwhile in the aftermath of the fiasco “the Electoral Commission today launched an inquiry into the organisation of the election, saying the poor turnout was a "concern for everyone who cares about democracy". You make a mockery of democracy at your peril Kingsmill. There is no question but that the newly elected PCCs will have no mandate and a very shaky grip on the actions they take in their new found highly paid posts. Even Stalin recognized that it was not voters who win elections, but those who counted the votes.[/p][/quote]As I have pointed out in every post, democracy requires that people vote; if you dont vote then dont complain about the result! Not sure how that is mocking democracy, but hey - never let a good prejudice get in the way of the facts! So its very pleasing to see the Electoral Commissions comments; never the less, the PCC will still have more of a mandate than the unelected body they replace. I think its best that we leave Stalin where he lies as I see no relevance - unless you are inferring that a centre right coalition Government somehow has Stalinist intentions? Sincere apologies - no-one could be that ridiculous![/p][/quote]Perhaps you should read up on the term "democratic process" and the real facts behind this farcical process before pontificating to all about your own version of 'the facts'.SickAndTired2

In my opinion, the reason many did not vote was that no information about the various candidates was put through letterboxes (except one) and the electorate felt they should not have to go searching for information if people wanted their vote. Even if it was thought too expensive to send out flyers to every house, it should have been possible to arrange meetings in each area so that people had an opportunity to assess the candidates.

In my opinion, the reason many did not vote was that no information about the various candidates was put through letterboxes (except one) and the electorate felt they should not have to go searching for information if people wanted their vote. Even if it was thought too expensive to send out flyers to every house, it should have been possible to arrange meetings in each area so that people had an opportunity to assess the candidates.silverlady54

Gorsedd wrote:
Kingsmill said &quot;I dont remember there being any minimum number of votes required to make the vote valid; its simple - the most votes cast for one candidate wins. John Dwyer won. Accept it until you have the opportunity to change it. That's democracy. That’s how the system works. Of course some can’t accept it when they don’t get the result they want!" Meanwhile in the aftermath of the fiasco “the Electoral Commission today launched an inquiry into the organisation of the election, saying the poor turnout was a "concern for everyone who cares about democracy". You make a mockery of democracy at your peril Kingsmill. There is no question but that the newly elected PCCs will have no mandate and a very shaky grip on the actions they take in their new found highly paid posts. Even Stalin recognized that it was not voters who win elections, but those who counted the votes.

As I have pointed out in every post, democracy requires that people vote; if you dont vote then dont complain about the result! Not sure how that is mocking democracy, but hey - never let a good prejudice get in the way of the facts! So its very pleasing to see the Electoral Commissions comments; never the less, the PCC will still have more of a mandate than the unelected body they replace. I think its best that we leave Stalin where he lies as I see no relevance - unless you are inferring that a centre right coalition Government somehow has Stalinist intentions? Sincere apologies - no-one could be that ridiculous!

Perhaps you should read up on the term "democratic process" and the real facts behind this farcical process before pontificating to all about your own version of 'the facts'.

The definition of Democratic Process according to the Collins Dictionary is "representatives who are elected by the people" As John Dwyer was elected in a free and fair election open to all eligible over 18, that neatly fits in with the term "democratic process" Whats your version of democratic process?

[quote][p][bold]SickAndTired2[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Kingsmill[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Gorsedd[/bold] wrote:
Kingsmill said "I dont remember there being any minimum number of votes required to make the vote valid; its simple - the most votes cast for one candidate wins. John Dwyer won. Accept it until you have the opportunity to change it. That's democracy. That’s how the system works. Of course some can’t accept it when they don’t get the result they want!" Meanwhile in the aftermath of the fiasco “the Electoral Commission today launched an inquiry into the organisation of the election, saying the poor turnout was a "concern for everyone who cares about democracy". You make a mockery of democracy at your peril Kingsmill. There is no question but that the newly elected PCCs will have no mandate and a very shaky grip on the actions they take in their new found highly paid posts. Even Stalin recognized that it was not voters who win elections, but those who counted the votes.[/p][/quote]As I have pointed out in every post, democracy requires that people vote; if you dont vote then dont complain about the result! Not sure how that is mocking democracy, but hey - never let a good prejudice get in the way of the facts! So its very pleasing to see the Electoral Commissions comments; never the less, the PCC will still have more of a mandate than the unelected body they replace. I think its best that we leave Stalin where he lies as I see no relevance - unless you are inferring that a centre right coalition Government somehow has Stalinist intentions? Sincere apologies - no-one could be that ridiculous![/p][/quote]Perhaps you should read up on the term "democratic process" and the real facts behind this farcical process before pontificating to all about your own version of 'the facts'.[/p][/quote]The definition of Democratic Process according to the Collins Dictionary is "representatives who are elected by the people" As John Dwyer was elected in a free and fair election open to all eligible over 18, that neatly fits in with the term "democratic process" Whats your version of democratic process?Kingsmill

Until three days before voting I didnt know who the candidates were, The lack of communication with the public is the result of a very low turn out.

The booths opened at 7am..
I went to vote at 10.30am.
I was told I was the 7th person to turn up,
Until three days before voting I didnt know who the candidates were, The lack of communication with the public is the result of a very low turn out.old-codger

By democratically you mean the lib/democrats putting the conservatives into power because labour wouldnt entertain them..????.

OMG - the Lib Dems went into power with the largest party after the 2010 election to provide stability of Government. Labour recieved the biggest defeat in their history. Not withstanding that, Gordon Brown still attempted to form a coalition of the damned - with every nationalist he could muster as the Lib Dems on their own did not give him sufficient seats - to cling onto power. It was Labour Grandees that told him not to steal the election. The country voted for a centre right coalition. Thats democracy!

[quote][p][bold]old-codger[/bold] wrote:
Kingsmill says...
9:32pm Fri 16 Nov 12 ...
PCC's were passed by our democratically elected Parliament .
By democratically you mean the lib/democrats putting the conservatives into power because labour wouldnt entertain them..????.[/p][/quote]OMG - the Lib Dems went into power with the largest party after the 2010 election to provide stability of Government. Labour recieved the biggest defeat in their history. Not withstanding that, Gordon Brown still attempted to form a coalition of the damned - with every nationalist he could muster as the Lib Dems on their own did not give him sufficient seats - to cling onto power. It was Labour Grandees that told him not to steal the election. The country voted for a centre right coalition. Thats democracy!Kingsmill

Sharkey2908 wrote:
No one wanted this. Its more &quot;Jobs for the Boys". Interesting to note that candidates have to be an MP. What happened to the police being non-political?

Where did you get that from - very few candidates were MPs (or former MPs, they had to step down if they were serving when nominated)

There are plenty of reasons to criticise this farce based on reality without non-factual allegations.

Just over 5% of the electorate voted for the winning candidate as a first choice - not his fault but he does not have an electoral mandate.

The only way he can start to justify his position is by holding regular, local open meetings (properly advertised) where he, personally, is called to account.He also needs to set measurable targets , independently monitored, and if he does not reach those he needs to go.

Ok I stand corrected - they did not have to be MP's, however they DID have to belong to a political party. One ex police Chief constable was going to stand for election, but withdrew after he was told he would have to become a Conservative Party member to qualify. Its nonsense - why should that become the rule? Surely ex police or military personnel are suitable candidates and can still be voted in or out without having their strings pulled by their overlords in Westminster.

Policing HAS to stay impartial and non-political.

[quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sharkey2908[/bold] wrote:
No one wanted this. Its more "Jobs for the Boys". Interesting to note that candidates have to be an MP. What happened to the police being non-political?[/p][/quote]Where did you get that from - very few candidates were MPs (or former MPs, they had to step down if they were serving when nominated)
There are plenty of reasons to criticise this farce based on reality without non-factual allegations.
Just over 5% of the electorate voted for the winning candidate as a first choice - not his fault but he does not have an electoral mandate.
The only way he can start to justify his position is by holding regular, local open meetings (properly advertised) where he, personally, is called to account.He also needs to set measurable targets , independently monitored, and if he does not reach those he needs to go.[/p][/quote]Ok I stand corrected - they did not have to be MP's, however they DID have to belong to a political party. One ex police Chief constable was going to stand for election, but withdrew after he was told he would have to become a Conservative Party member to qualify. Its nonsense - why should that become the rule? Surely ex police or military personnel are suitable candidates and can still be voted in or out without having their strings pulled by their overlords in Westminster.
Policing HAS to stay impartial and non-political.Sharkey2908

At the end of the day, any vote which which receives less than 50% of the total votes from the electorate should be looked at again. there is no "none" vote on any ballot, so the only way we can express our opinion is not to vote, we don't lose our right to choose, we are expressing our right not to, because it's wrong. Don't you think if we actually lived in a pure democracy we would have had a referendum to see what "we" wanted. It has cost millions putting this into place, millions of our money for something we were never asked about, and as usual it will cost millions to undo it all, when we do finally get our say, although with only a 13.3% turnout I think we have finally had our say, the question is now... Will we be listened to?

At the end of the day, any vote which which receives less than 50% of the total votes from the electorate should be looked at again. there is no "none" vote on any ballot, so the only way we can express our opinion is not to vote, we don't lose our right to choose, we are expressing our right not to, because it's wrong. Don't you think if we actually lived in a pure democracy we would have had a referendum to see what "we" wanted. It has cost millions putting this into place, millions of our money for something we were never asked about, and as usual it will cost millions to undo it all, when we do finally get our say, although with only a 13.3% turnout I think we have finally had our say, the question is now... Will we be listened to?gazhopley

Sharkey2908 wrote:
No one wanted this. Its more &quot;Jobs for the Boys". Interesting to note that candidates have to be an MP. What happened to the police being non-political?

Where did you get that from - very few candidates were MPs (or former MPs, they had to step down if they were serving when nominated)

There are plenty of reasons to criticise this farce based on reality without non-factual allegations.

Just over 5% of the electorate voted for the winning candidate as a first choice - not his fault but he does not have an electoral mandate.

The only way he can start to justify his position is by holding regular, local open meetings (properly advertised) where he, personally, is called to account.He also needs to set measurable targets , independently monitored, and if he does not reach those he needs to go.

Ok I stand corrected - they did not have to be MP's, however they DID have to belong to a political party. One ex police Chief constable was going to stand for election, but withdrew after he was told he would have to become a Conservative Party member to qualify. Its nonsense - why should that become the rule? Surely ex police or military personnel are suitable candidates and can still be voted in or out without having their strings pulled by their overlords in Westminster.

Policing HAS to stay impartial and non-political.

Candidates did not have to belong to a political party, although many did, indeed 12 independents have been elected as PCCs.

[quote][p][bold]Sharkey2908[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sharkey2908[/bold] wrote:
No one wanted this. Its more "Jobs for the Boys". Interesting to note that candidates have to be an MP. What happened to the police being non-political?[/p][/quote]Where did you get that from - very few candidates were MPs (or former MPs, they had to step down if they were serving when nominated)
There are plenty of reasons to criticise this farce based on reality without non-factual allegations.
Just over 5% of the electorate voted for the winning candidate as a first choice - not his fault but he does not have an electoral mandate.
The only way he can start to justify his position is by holding regular, local open meetings (properly advertised) where he, personally, is called to account.He also needs to set measurable targets , independently monitored, and if he does not reach those he needs to go.[/p][/quote]Ok I stand corrected - they did not have to be MP's, however they DID have to belong to a political party. One ex police Chief constable was going to stand for election, but withdrew after he was told he would have to become a Conservative Party member to qualify. Its nonsense - why should that become the rule? Surely ex police or military personnel are suitable candidates and can still be voted in or out without having their strings pulled by their overlords in Westminster.
Policing HAS to stay impartial and non-political.[/p][/quote]Candidates did not have to belong to a political party, although many did, indeed 12 independents have been elected as PCCs.Paul Kennedy

well done John Dwyer. We can state our pros and cons but this is happening. Let's see how it transpires and see if crime can really be reduced with this method of policing eh? I am hoping that 1-2 years on, we will be clapping our hands that this has happened.

well done John Dwyer. We can state our pros and cons but this is happening. Let's see how it transpires and see if crime can really be reduced with this method of policing eh? I am hoping that 1-2 years on, we will be clapping our hands that this has happened.Turnaround

Paul Kennedy said "Candidates did not have to belong to a political party, although many did, indeed 12 independents have been elected as PCCs." But there is no doubt the political parties offered more than tacit support to many candidates in the hope the PCC might have a political hue. That all three parties so engaged proves that point. The change from unelected quangoes to an elected but largely unwanted sole supremo as the link between public and policing was poltically motivated, in spite of largescale and national public antipathy. Maybe if the members of the old and now defunct policing committees had to become elected members instead of being quango place men/women it would have been more acceptable? That at least would have given the public a wider and local say in who represented them on policing matters.

Paul Kennedy said "Candidates did not have to belong to a political party, although many did, indeed 12 independents have been elected as PCCs." But there is no doubt the political parties offered more than tacit support to many candidates in the hope the PCC might have a political hue. That all three parties so engaged proves that point. The change from unelected quangoes to an elected but largely unwanted sole supremo as the link between public and policing was poltically motivated, in spite of largescale and national public antipathy. Maybe if the members of the old and now defunct policing committees had to become elected members instead of being quango place men/women it would have been more acceptable? That at least would have given the public a wider and local say in who represented them on policing matters.Gorsedd

By democratically you mean the lib/democrats putting the conservatives into power because labour wouldnt entertain them..????.

OMG - the Lib Dems went into power with the largest party after the 2010 election to provide stability of Government. Labour recieved the biggest defeat in their history. Not withstanding that, Gordon Brown still attempted to form a coalition of the damned - with every nationalist he could muster as the Lib Dems on their own did not give him sufficient seats - to cling onto power. It was Labour Grandees that told him not to steal the election. The country voted for a centre right coalition. Thats democracy!

OMG - the Lib Dems went into power with the largest party after the 2010 election to provide stability of Government.

Yes and what a right B**LS up they have done of it.This country is in a worse state now than it ever was under labour..

[quote][p][bold]Kingsmill[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]old-codger[/bold] wrote:
Kingsmill says...
9:32pm Fri 16 Nov 12 ...
PCC's were passed by our democratically elected Parliament .
By democratically you mean the lib/democrats putting the conservatives into power because labour wouldnt entertain them..????.[/p][/quote]OMG - the Lib Dems went into power with the largest party after the 2010 election to provide stability of Government. Labour recieved the biggest defeat in their history. Not withstanding that, Gordon Brown still attempted to form a coalition of the damned - with every nationalist he could muster as the Lib Dems on their own did not give him sufficient seats - to cling onto power. It was Labour Grandees that told him not to steal the election. The country voted for a centre right coalition. Thats democracy![/p][/quote]OMG - the Lib Dems went into power with the largest party after the 2010 election to provide stability of Government.
Yes and what a right B**LS up they have done of it.This country is in a worse state now than it ever was under labour..annie1275

Kingsmill wrote:
Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Same old nonsense comments! If you didnt want this guy, you should have got off your arses and voted against him. He got the most votes. He won. Thats democracy! Simple really!

jobs for the boys no one was interested, they knew before the voting no one was going to bother thats why it was pushed on TV and Radio and it was stated on all the newes chanels if was destined to be a flop, this country is going down hill fast and we want to give away so many £100.000 jobs what a joke

[quote][p][bold]Kingsmill[/bold] wrote:
Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Same old nonsense comments! If you didnt want this guy, you should have got off your arses and voted against him. He got the most votes. He won. Thats democracy! Simple really![/p][/quote]jobs for the boys no one was interested, they knew before the voting no one was going to bother thats why it was pushed on TV and Radio and it was stated on all the newes chanels if was destined to be a flop, this country is going down hill fast and we want to give away so many £100.000 jobs what a jokethe dr who

I voted at just before 9pm and I was the thirty forth (or similar) voter with an hour to go before closing. I looked up the candidates and made a choice. I voted because for once my vote might actually count as so few could be bothered.

Some great made up sh** on the comments. If only every one felt strongly enough to get out and vote. Candidates were prevented from mailing voters with any support i.e. funds, - the only way to fund a campaign was party backing or pay it out of your own pocket.

Lets hope they listen to the public and dictate policing priorities the public want !!

I voted at just before 9pm and I was the thirty forth (or similar) voter with an hour to go before closing. I looked up the candidates and made a choice. I voted because for once my vote might actually count as so few could be bothered.
Some great made up sh** on the comments. If only every one felt strongly enough to get out and vote. Candidates were prevented from mailing voters with any support i.e. funds, - the only way to fund a campaign was party backing or pay it out of your own pocket.
Lets hope they listen to the public and dictate policing priorities the public want !!local man